The question is related to the matter of political obligation and the social contract we belong in under the government. I feel that we are obliged to obey the government because we have all been educated, all been helped by a governmental service (police, fire brigade, health service) and some of us choose to vote which I feel automatically means we should live under their control for our own good.
We, at the moment, live under a social contract. The only other options would to let some people live under the governmental control or have a complete Anarchist country.
I think that we should feel obliged to obey the government because we live in a predominately democratic world and after thousands of years of civilisation it has become the most successful way of living.
If we did not obey the government then all control would be lost and towns and cities would be overturned. This is because we have become used to living in a controlled country and any change would result in major upset around the world.
I think this is the best way to live because it keeps everyone under a certain aspect of control to make sure people do not become out of hand but it does not lead to anyone being ‘chained’ to the government.
This reason may be criticised because some people believe that they have not consented to be governed therefore they do not have to obey the law. This is a plausible argument in my opinion because some people may want to live completely freely.
Regardless, the argument still stands because if only some people want to live under government control and others do not then the country would simply not function properly. Since we already live in a country where the government has control and we have seen the working effects of this then I think that (any) change would cause a large upset in the country and also in the rest of the world due to the disaster effects of this change.
A second argument on the matter is an Anarchist one. Anarchists believe that people could work and get along together in their own small communities and they feel that there is no need to be controlled by the government.
Anarchists argue that they have not consented to be governed therefore they can do as they please. They also argue that education is compulsory therefore regardless if they have been schooled then they can still live how they want.
This reason may be criticised because if a small amount of the population live under their own rule then this will undoubtedly have an effect on the rest of the country because people that call themselves ‘anarchists’ could steal and murder and get away with it because the government have no real control over them. This would cause massive uproar because of the drastic change included. The change would allow people to rebel properly for the first time without any consequences. An example of a scaled-down version of this would be the London riots that happened earlier in the year. As soon as people started to get a feeling of that freedom then everything became out of control. I feel that this would happen but in a larger scale.
This argument still stands because there would be no realistic way of allowing any Anarchism into our country without drastic consequences. For this reason alone, I still think that we should all be governed and everyone should feel obliged to obey the law and government otherwise havoc would occur. If people refuse to live under a non-anarchist rule then they should emigrate.
A third argument on the discussion could be that people are given the option to be under government control. This argument is an explicit one.
To achieve this, a lot would have to change in our current society because we would simply not be able to have half the population running riot and the other half calling the police.
This could be criticised because a new system would have to be put into place which would be incredibly life-altering for a lot of people. Without a new system the segregation would not work in today’s life in our country because people have been living this way for too long and any change would lead to drastic consequences such as excessive theft and other crimes.
Another criticism would be the question of where to draw the line for the Anarchists because there would have to be a certain degree of government control. For example, a paramedic would not be able to morally stand by as someone who has declared themselves as ‘free’ suffers from an injury of any sort on the street just because they do not pay tax or obey the government. The paramedic is paid by the government through the citizen’s tax and therefore, technically, the man or woman on the street should not be given any help. This is a sensitive argument but a vital one because it proves that we couldn’t possibly live in a society where only half the population lives under any political control.
For this reason, an explicit view on this matter would not work and the argument still stands.
After summarising the possible arguments, I feel that living in a 100% anarchist country could not work because of the situation we are in now and the change and consequences would be too great to handle.
On the other hand, living in an explicit country where people could choose if they wanted to be governed would also not work in my opinion because of more specific problems such as major problems in day to day society and the problem that our country would undoubtedly split into two separate countries, one being the Anarchists and the other; people who wanted to be ruled.
To conclude, we have consented to be governed because we live on governmental land and we follow governmental laws and should therefore feel the consequences if we break these laws. Consequently, people who believe that they are above the government should either leave the country completely or feel the consequences otherwise there would be no control and therefore no society or community.